(United States First Circuit) - In this shareholder derivate suit, plaintiff Sarnacki asserts Nevada state-law claim against Smith & Wesson's officers and directors, including breach of fiduciary duties, wastes of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. In reaction to earlier and parallel cases, Smith & Wesson's Board formed a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to investigate and determine the viability of any of these claims and to make a recommendation to the Board whether to pursue any of these claims. The SLC recommended against filing any claims. The district court granted defendant's motion for summary dismissal on the basis of the SLC recommendation, and after limited discovery. The judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the Board has met its burden as to proving the independence of the SLC; 2) the SLC's investigation was reasonable and in good faith; and 3) the district court's decision to limit discovery was not an abuse of the court's discretion, as it was adequate to aid its review.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019-06933 (Index No. 508155/15)

(NY Supreme Court) - 2018–11536 (Index No. 51923/17)

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–09206 Index No. 604223/16

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a diversity insurance coverage action, District Court erred in not applying the specialized meaning of terms in an insurance contract, as required by the California Civil Code (here “war” and “warlike action”). Summary judgment in favor of insurer overturned.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued employer, Defendant, for racial discrimination and retaliation. A jury found in favor of Plaintiff. Trial court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but denied the motion with respect to the retaliation and discrimination claims. Appeals court found no error.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The trial court's determination that the County Board of Supervisors' elimination of a longtime county Solid Waste Enforcement Officer's position was retaliation was upheld. The employee was running for sheriff as an Independent and the Board preferred Democrats.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Petition denied. A company's petition for review of an administrative law judge's finding of violations and imposition of a monetary penalty against a poultry processing plant following a worker injury was upheld.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Minor league baseball players seeking class status in an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act appeal the denial of class certification in Arizona and Florida. The panel held certification is appropriate and consistent with “the great public policy” embodied by the FLSA.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a homeowner was not entitled to a refund of property taxes. County officials correctly determined that there was a change in ownership of a house she co-owned with her sister, which triggered a reassessment of its value. Affirmed a judgment after trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a county tax assessor incorrectly determined the value, for property tax purposes, of a concessionaire's lease at San Francisco International Airport.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that customers who had paid sales tax on purchases they believed to be exempt did not have an equitable cause of action to compel the retailers to seek a tax refund from the state, under the facts here. Affirmed a judgment sustaining the retailers' demurrer.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners were not disqualified from taking a tax break. California has a special tax provision benefitting homeowners over 55 years of age when they relocate to a replacement dwelling in the same county. Reversed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a plaintiff in a tax refund lawsuit was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Affirmed the ruling below.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that it is constitutional for San Francisco to impose a tax on drivers who park their cars in paid parking lots, even when the parking lot is operated by a state university.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed. District court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion for class certification met the predominance requirement of FRCP 23(b)(3). Plaintiff’s proposed damages model was consistent with his theory of liability, where cost-of-repair damages could be used in claims arising from a defective hydraulic clutch system.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversing the pre-discovery dismissal of a wrongful termination claim filed by an in-house patent attorney against their former employer, L'Oreal, alleging that he was terminated for his refusal to violate ethical rules on their behalf because, as the court put it, his allegations were more than skin-deep.

(United States First Circuit) - In a civil procedure action, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's case after his attorney failed to appear at a scheduled motion hearing is reversed for abuse of discretion where there was no suggestion of intentional failure to appear, no prior neglect by counsel to appear, the district court gave no notice that failure to appear would result in dismissal with prejudice, and plaintiff's claims would be left without a single merits determination.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that there was no need to disqualify a city attorney's office from representing the city in a police officer's employment lawsuit. The officer argued that disqualification was necessary because she had been forced to answer questions about her lawsuit during a police internal affairs interview about another matter. Ordered the trial court to vacate its order disqualifying the city attorney's office.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Ordering the district court to vacate orders prohibiting the petitioner from expressing their views on litigation or republishing public documents over social media platforms, and requiring them to post a disclaimer prohibiting comment on the litigation because this amounted to prior restraint on their First Amendment rights.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Track and Field did not violate antitrust law by imposing advertising restrictions during the Olympic Trials. A chewing gum company that wished to pay to display its logo on athletes' apparel brought this suit to challenge the advertising restrictions. Rejecting the company's arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant organizations were entitled to implied antitrust immunity on the basis that their advertising restrictions were integral to performance of their duties under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the State Bar of California did not have to disclose information from its database. For social science research purposes, the petitioners sought anonymized data about all individuals who took the California bar examination from 1972 to 2008, including their race or ethnicity, law school and undergraduate grade point averages, LSAT scores, and performance on the bar examination. Affirming the denial of a writ of mandate, the California First Appellate District held that such a request was beyond the purview of the California Public Records Act because it would compel the State Bar to create new records.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an en banc opinion, addressed the constitutionality of a San Francisco ordinance that requires health warnings to be included in advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. Industry groups challenged the ordinance, contending that it violates freedom of commercial speech. Finding this argument persuasive, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a media company's claim that a popular website infringed its copyright in certain photographs of famous celebrities. The website, which enables users to create and share digital photo collages, has a clipper tool that lets users clip images from other websites. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part, in this case involving the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a judgment enforcement action, arising out of a default judgment for plaintiff in a contracts dispute over defendant's failure to pay for sheet metal, the trial court's entry of amended default judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) Donald Koh was improperly added as a judgment debtor on an alter ego theory under Motores de Mexicali v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 172 (1958); but 2) South Gate Steel was properly added as a judgment debtor on a corporate successor theory.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an appeal from an order specifying the buyout value of plaintiffs' 36.7% minority shareholder interest in Katana Software, Inc. pursuant to Corporations Code section 2000(c), is reversed where: 1) the order is an alternative decree which is appealable pursuant to section 2000(c), under Cotton v. Expo Power Systems, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1380; and 2) the trial court undervalued their shares when it 'confirmed' three disparate court-ordered appraisals and averaged the appraisals to determine the fair value of the company.

(California Court of Appeal) - Issuing a peremptory writ of mandate and vacating the superior court's refusal to apply the Braddock rule, requiring that the court assess demand futility as to the board in place when an amended complaint is filed in a corporate action, because the rule is consistent with relevant aspects of California law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Construing the appeal of a trial court order requiring a party whose ownership interests were contested to be a petition for writ of mandate and holding that partition statutes don't allow a court to order the manner of a property's partition before determining the ownership interests of the property at stake, reversing the court's order.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a water law action, arising from a dispute between landowners and public water producers over rights to groundwater contained in the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin, the trial court's amended judgment is affirmed where: 1) the trial court properly quieted title even though it did not quantify the proportionate prescriptive loss attributed to specified parcels; 2) the trial court did not err in its prevailing party determination for the purposes of determining costs.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a lawsuit to unwind a public water agency's acquisition of all of the stock of a retail water purveyor within its territory, the trial court's order refusing to unwind the transaction is affirmed where: 1) the streamlined procedures available for validating certain acts of public agencies, Code Civ. Proc.section 860 et seq., are inapplicable; 2) substantial evidence supports the trial court's factual finding that the purveyor did not become the agency's alter ego in this case; and 3) the agency did not violate article XVI, section 17.

(United States First Circuit) - In a public utilities class action, contending that defendant power company (PREPA)'s subsidized municipalities' private use of power in violation of Puerto Rico law, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs' lack of a valid protected interest in the electricity consumed by the municipalities or the funds paid to PREPA deprive them of standing to bring takings or due process claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case in which the Court of Appeals previously dismissed the appeal of plaintiffs from a nonappealable stipulated judgment pursuant to a settlement agreement, and the parties entered into an amended stipulated judgment, the trial court's decision is reversed where: 1) the amended stipulated judgment is final and appealable and the court's opinion, with respect to the trespass and nuisance claims only, is not advisory; 2) on the merits, plaintiffs were legally entitled to present evidence of plaintiff's emotional distress on their claims for trespass and nuisance as annoyance and discomfort damages recoverable for such torts; and 3) the trial court excluded evidence of emotional distress damages in their entirety.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an antitrust lawsuit alleging a power district had attempted to entrench its monopoly by setting prices that disfavored solar-power providers, defendant's appeal of the district court order denying its motion to dismiss the suit based on the state-action immunity doctrine, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the collateral order doctrine does not allow an immediate appeal of an order denying a dismissal motion based on state-action immunity.

(Supreme Court of California) - In a case relating to a surcharge added to energy bills that the city claimed was a fee for the use of public services which taxpayers characterized as a tax imposed without voter approval the court affirmed the appellate decision reversing the trial court's grant of motion for judgment on the pleadings, but reversed the appellate court's order granting summary adjudication to the plaintiffs.

(United States First Circuit) - In an antitrust action, alleging that defendant's petitioning of the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board, government officials and tribunals, and commonwealth and federal courts to prevent plaintiff's application to provide internet protocol television service violated the Sherman Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the facts of the case don't subject defendant to the sham exception of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protecting the right to petition the government.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of an action by a private energy company against the utility companies because the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act does not provide a private right of action against utility companies and affirming the denial of a motion for additional relief against various Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities officials because the court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an amended opinion, revived a citizen group's claim that a city violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove numerous trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed a demurrer ruling, in relevant part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that ride-sharing company Uber must comply with administrative subpoenas issued by San Francisco's City Attorney seeking data submitted to the California Public Utility Commission. Affirmed the decision below, rejecting Uber's confidentiality arguments.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs, rural, privately-owned telephone companies, brought suit against Defendant, California Public Utilities Commission, challenging the PUC’s decision establishing “cost of capital” as component in rate making. Plaintiff argued Defendant failed to adequately consider circumstances for rural telephone companies and that the PUC decision was unconstitutional. Appeals court held Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the PUC decision was arbitrary, capricious, lacking in evidentiary support, or fell short of constitutional standards.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the Court of International Trade's decision affirming a Department of Commerce ruling in the administrative review of an earlier anti-dumping order, the court held that no error occurred in the determination that a Chinese saw blade manufacturer was seeking to sell their products at less than fair market value in the United States.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the US Court of International Trade's dismissal of two separate complaints challenging the countervailing duties on imported goods charged to an importer of aluminum extrusions from China because, regardless of the difference in rates between this importer's charge and a subsequent litigation into a similar matter, the importer was not a party to the other action, and they had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and could not claim the benefit of the rate awarded in separate litigation.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed dismissal of a breach-of-contract suit against a Mexican-government-owned salt production company (ESSA) on sovereign immunity grounds. The plaintiff corporation alleged that ESSA breached a long-term, multimillion-dollar contract to sell the briny residue of its salt production process. Agreeing with the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that ESSA was immune from suit in the United States because it is a foreign state for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and neither the commercial-activity exception nor other exceptions applied here.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - On rehearing of a dispute between two creditors, held that Louisiana's non-resident attachment statute allows for attachment in aid of arbitration. Further held that subject matter jurisdiction existed here under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff's suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is reversed where plaintiff's stated claims under the Lanham Act, alleging false advertising and unfair competition, were sufficient for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6).

(United States Third Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff's suit, alleging trade-dress infringement and tortious interference, for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed were defendant had sufficient contacts with New Jersey.